Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

I read this article the other day. It started out like this:

What you think is "flagrantly unconstitutional" only takes five votes to make constitutional.

 

Well you don't seem to be analyzing this very deeply. It has no mind, and has never had a mind, and so it has no moral relevance whatsoever. I mean, how do you feel about "humans" with anencephaly (the part of the brain where consciousness resides doesn't develop at all).

Do babies with anencephaly suffer?

"A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a rudimentary brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness." Anencephaly Information Page | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (nih.gov)

A preconscious fetus and an anencephalic fetus start out the same with respect to having no mind. The difference is that a preconscious fetus can get there later. But if we could keep an anencephalic "baby" alive by extraordinary medical measures, should we? No, because it's not a person. It has no mind.

 

Maybe check with these guys:

When Your Baby’s Heartbeat Starts and When You Can Hear It (whattoexpect.com)

This guy, specifically:

 

There is no problem.

 

Distraction attempt unsuccessful.

Your position is that fetuses don't have rights (specifically, a right to life), ergo your position is that living humans don't have rights (specifically, a right to life). That is pretty damn disgusting imho...

 

I see your guy and raise you these women

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...l-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-on-abortion

This law is absolute ****... and everybody knows it...

The only question is when this will be challenged and who that will be.... Somebody needs to sponsor a clinic or doctor to be sued by Lureen and Curly Q Public, then we'll see how long this nonsense stands...

 

The right to bodily autonomy holds a tremendous amount of weight....just because YOU don't understand what it means doesn't mean it isn't a significant right.

NO, it 's an issue of YOU not knowing what the right to bodily autonomy is...

Obviously not if you assume it has something to do with child support.

I DON'T GRANT IT THE LAW OF THE LAND DOES....it's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT ...

 

You have oversimplified the issue in a ridiculous way. The mind is the crux of the issue. No mind = no person. By the same principle, we declare people are dead based upon brain death and an inability to ever regain their conscious mind. Their heart can keep pumping after brain death, and we could keep their tissues alive with ECMO for an extended time, but it's futile (except for organ harvesting) because it's no longer a truly living person. The only reason the heart pumping has ever been used to declare death is because it is easier to measure and we know that if the heart is not pumping, and the person is not on life support, the brain will be irreversibly dead in minutes.

 

It's not constitutional, yet, and the only thing the 5/4 vote did was allow the Texas law to stand until the arguments are heard. That being said, because of the flagrant conflict the TX law and R v W have, the court erred by not putting a pause on the law. But, I think another federal judge just did, I have to check on that.

They will have only two choices:

1. Abide by R v W and shoot the Texas Law down.

2. Or, go against 70 years of SOLID precedent and the will of 70% of the population and repeal R v W and uphold the Texas law.

Lets be clear, there is NO WAY they can allow the Texas law to stand AND allow R v W to stand.

Because they conflict, not only do they conflict, they conflict FLAGRANTLY. Why? Because R v W legalizes abortion for the first stage, up to 20 or so weeks, and the Texas law conflicts, making it illegal before 6 weeks, the very time that R v W legalizes. And that's a flagrant conflict that no SCOTUS, worth it's salt, will allow. It would destroy the court if such a conflict were allowed to stand.

Personally, I don't think Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret have the guts to repeal it, because let's not be coy about this, they KNOW what what is coming if they repeal it. And, God help them should they allow a flagrant conflict to stand.

There will be hell to pay, and the thing they did on Bush v Gore and the flack they got that will PALE compared to the onslaught of public outcry that will be hot and heavy on their plates until kingdom come, if they shoot down R v W.

 

Thank you, shot that argument to bits.

Great!

 

Yes it does. By about 400 years.

 

It was already in the lower courts when it went to SCOTUS for an emergency injunction.

 

Soul?

Sure it does, the Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, all had concepts of 'soul' predating christianity.

I mean, probably goes back to prehistory, as almost all pagan religions referred to 'spirits' and 'after life' of some kind.

 

Direct violation of nature? Yeah, I'll run that by the next lion that bites into a pregnant gazelle frolicking on the Serengeti.

Your arguments are emotional/philosophical ones (whether you say so or not, matters not ) and, as such,
do not override the right to body autonomy and privacy thereof. If you want to assert 'science says so...." no, it doesn't, and let's not forget, this is the same science that uses stem cell lines from aborted fetuses in the manufacture of vaccines, so.....so much for 'science' on the subject of fetal personhood.

Myth: There is no right to bodily autonomy.
Not only is bodily autonomy a human right, it is the foundation upon which other human rights are built.

It is included, implicitly or explicitly, in many international rights agreements, such as the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.'

Look, I feel abortion is as repugnant as you do, but that decision is between a woman and her health providers, family, etc.

 

R v W puts it at about 20 weeks, so this has already been established.

As a liberal dem, I'm fine with that. A woman's got plenty of time to make the decision before 20 or 22 weeks, ( or whatever R v W says it is ).

 

Nobody has sued anybody yet for performing an abortion at 6 weeks+... Until that happens, it's all theory time....

At least one has to go ahead to put this law out of everybody's misery, but I think the Texas clinics and doctors are playing this completely wrong...

 

Bull. It's not a push-button SC.

 

"International rights agreements", that's what you're hinging you argument on? LOL!

International rights agreements aren't worth the paper they were printed on. If it weren't so, this wouldn't be going on: China Harvesting Organs of Uighur Muslims, China Tribunal Tells UN (businessinsider.com)

 

Watch and see.

 

You really ought to read this: Opinion | Don’t Be So Sure a Supreme Court Backlash Will Boost Democrats - POLITICO

 

"You have indigestion? NO ABORTION FOR YOU"

"Arrest that woman, gimme my money"

"FFFRRREEEDDDOMMMM"

Conservatives make SOOO much sense.

 

Very weak. Couples do NOT like being told when they must have children. This apparent idea that ambitious twenty-somethings will all settle down and become good parents once they are FORCED to is about as bollocks a notion as I can recall.

 

Ooooh! Let me!

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2003/03/lessons-roe-will-past-be-prologue



https://www.columbiamissourian.com/...age_d6b4d96c-65d8-11e9-a355-1394efd6d111.html

 

I don’t doubt what you say is correct, but I don’t understand the reasoning. We’re talking about stages of human life. The instant that human egg is fertilized it’s exactly what a human life looks like at that stage of development. Exactly as human as a new born, or an 18 year old, or an 80 year old. It is human life that needs to be protected.[/QUOTE]


It is called the Carnegie stages of embryonic development

 

Have no fear people. No rape victim in TX has to worry about carrying their assailant's child to term because Abbott is going to eliminate all rapists. Problem solved. I can't believe no one in the history of the world thought about this brilliant idea before. Guy's a f'ing genius.

Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said in a press conference on Tuesday that the state's new abortion law would not force a rape victim to carry their assailant's child to term. To achieve this, the governor pledged to "eliminate all rapists" in Texas, the local NBC affiliate KXAN reported.

"Let's make something very clear: Rape is a crime," Abbott said while signing a major GOP election-reform bill. "And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets."

Well sure...they can take anyone convicted of rape off the streets but um....what about all those rapists in waiting??? How is Abbott going to rid the streets of these animals? Thought police???